New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tyranny of Fat - Page 29

post #841 of 901

re started skiing after being away [25yrs.] so before buying a new pair ive tried 84  dynastar pow.track then the 79.

so i bought the later.found that the 79 were easier to turn, drift or carve.

im 57 yrs. of age only intermediate skier.and from the east.[orford and owls head]

was int much snow this year so ive never had the chance  to ski were they were deep snow conditions, mostly hard pak and ice surfaces,

with  maybe 1 to 3 inches of snow sometimes.

post #842 of 901
You won't boot out with a proper plate.
post #843 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

You won't boot out with a proper plate.

 

Yup, and I used to use 'em. Still have some of the "lifted" skis.

 

But I mostly use the Shamans. Amazing ski. For me. YMMV.

post #844 of 901

Great article.  Leaned a few tricks, thank you.

post #845 of 901

Revisiting this.

 

Interesting that the best 2017 skis in ski magazine have highlighted several 75-85mm skis for groomers rather than the huge number of 85+ skis as the "best of the best" or Gold winners.

 

Sounds like the MFG's are starting to offer more narrower skis and getting good feed back for doing so.

 

Maybe the swing of everything FAT is finally swinging back to reasonable..

 

Nothing wrong with wide rockered skis for the proper conditions but with most (75%?) recreational skiers being beginner to intermediate and skiing 90% of their time on groomers, WHY are we pushing them to all ski on 95+ skis?

post #846 of 901
Quote:
 Sounds like the MFG's are starting to offer more narrower skis

We all have a closet full of wide skis, so the mfgs need something *new* to sell to us.

 

Quote:
 with most (75%?) recreational skiers being beginner to intermediate and skiing 90% of their time on groomers, WHY are we pushing them to all ski on 95+ skis?

Get up to date.  That was the marketing push of the last decade.

 

Skiing in Europe is interesting in many ways, including that most skiers are on-piste skiers using the right tool for the job...narrow skis very well suited for groomers.

post #847 of 901

I am up to date (or at least I think I am). but I seem to be a lonely voice in the wind. My recommendations for intermediate skis is almost always in the 78-85 range. Maybe a 70-75 soft ski.. Never 90+.

 

Perfect example is this thread here.  http://www.epicski.com/t/150539/first-pair-of-skis-recommendation-for-light-weight-6-157lb-for-tahoe-fischer-ranger

 

DC

post #848 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post

I am up to date (or at least I think I am). but I seem to be a lonely voice in the wind. My recommendations for intermediate skis is almost always in the 78-85 range. Maybe a 70-75 soft ski.. Never 90+.

Perfect example is this thread here.  http://www.epicski.com/t/150539/first-pair-of-skis-recommendation-for-light-weight-6-157lb-for-tahoe-fischer-ranger

DC

The mistake here has always been about waist width. My 100mm waist daily driver has a 127mm tip, close to the same as an old pair of LX82. Those skis have nothing to do with each other.

Bringing modern shape into narrower skis is a very good trend, because people generally struggle far more with full camber and how they can interact with the sidecut than they do the waist width of the ski, especially if there are boot and/or alignment issues, and that struggle leads to bad habits.

The other point is that it is generally far easier to learn upper and lower body separation on a ski that releases laterally with neutral foot pressure (neither heel pushing not fully driving from the tips). I would argue that people should start on a somewhat wider and more stable platform with a non-hooky taper design so they can go straight to parallel, and then back down to more specific "edge" tools as skills increase, alignment issues are addressed, etc.

It's not about waist and "rocker". Skis that swing laterally due to easy full edge release enable upper/lower separation skill acquisition without high edge skill sets. That's not about cheating - it's about maximizing early progression, success, and enjoyment.
post #849 of 901

I don't disagree that a little wider is good.. Better platform, yes. Most modern intermediate skis are not full camber any more. Most have some tip rocker or "early rise". Most are soft enough to allow for interaction with the side cut.

I also don't disagree that it's not just waist and rocker. All not disputed.

It's the push to tell everyone that a 95-105 mostly decambered, soft ski is the best choice for someone that will spend 95% of their time on groomed hard snow and will help them to learn to ski better. and it's that part of the marketing machine I'm glad is finally beginning to realize that a somewhat narrower ski has a good place in the market.

 

Going to a ski that puts the edge of the ski well outside the edge of the boot, means it is going to take more effort and torque to actually begin to put that ski on edge (even a little) combine that with less than a well fit boot, and we wonder why our intermediate skiers can't hold an edge, let alone begin to feel what an edged ski feels like.

Sure being able to do a full edge release and swing the ski laterally is all well and good. Most of the first timers I have been teaching can't even find an edge to release. Try to get them to traverse a 1-2 degree slope and they will keep going sideways and ask why the ski won't go straight. Making it harder to get them to roll the ski onto even a slight edge (ski wider than the foot) makes for some bad habits and an even stronger urge to push the ski out to side to get an edge.

 

In softer packed powder, soft groomers a wider ski will sink in a little and give the "feel of an edge" but on hard pack firm groomers not so much.

 

Just some rambling thoughts.

post #850 of 901
99.9% fashion, .1% function. ...great skiers can rip on skinny or fat skis. Lifer intermediates will be lifer intermediates on skinny or fat skis.
post #851 of 901

Revisiting this, I was in Summit Co last month and decided to rent rather than bring my own skis. I was looking for something like an 85-90 mm twin tip, but I had a hell of a time finding rental shops that had any real selection of skis over 75-mm. It was funny that this particular thread popped into mind. I was wondering where all of the "gunboats" were that all of the unsuspecting tourists were being forced to ski against their will.

 

At one point, I was half-seriously thinking about buying a pair of skis and leaving them with my mother, since she drove in to CO and could take them back to her place. Eventually, I found a place on the mountain at Copper that had something good enough.

post #852 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

Revisiting this, I was in Summit Co last month and decided to rent rather than bring my own skis. I was looking for something like an 85-90 mm twin tip, but I had a hell of a time finding rental shops that had any real selection of skis over 75-mm. It was funny that this particular thread popped into mind. I was wondering where all of the "gunboats" were that all of the unsuspecting tourists were being forced to ski against their will.

 

At one point, I was half-seriously thinking about buying a pair of skis and leaving them with my mother, since she drove in to CO and could take them back to her place. Eventually, I found a place on the mountain at Copper that had something good enough.

 

That's funny to me... the first time I rented skis out west, at Vail in 2015, my first trip out west... I asked for something narrow since I'd be on groomers most of the time. They gave me Rossi E88's and said that was about the narrowest thing they were renting. 

 

I guess maybe things are shifting. FWIW, in Whistler earlier this season I could have rented anything from an 68 mm waist race ski, up to a 116 mm wide powder ski; And they had several models in the 100-116 range.

post #853 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post

Revisiting this, I was in Summit Co last month and decided to rent rather than bring my own skis. I was looking for something like an 85-90 mm twin tip, but I had a hell of a time finding rental shops that had any real selection of skis over 75-mm. It was funny that this particular thread popped into mind. I was wondering where all of the "gunboats" were that all of the unsuspecting tourists were being forced to ski against their will.

At one point, I was half-seriously thinking about buying a pair of skis and leaving them with my mother, since she drove in to CO and could take them back to her place. Eventually, I found a place on the mountain at Copper that had something good enough.

Wonder if you were looking in rental shops or demo shops? Retail shops that sell and rent will often have larger fleets of a wide range of skis for demo.. There are however, still many "rental shops" offering the cheapest rental packages but don't sell a lot of equipment other than accessories like hats and gloves. These shops will often mostly have basic beginner gear. If they offer a "performance rental" it might be a fleet of slightly better intermediate skis.
post #854 of 901

We rent everything from Atomic Redsters (sub 70 mm) to Kastle BMX 108(?). Even with our less than ideal winter, we usually rent skis in the 80 mm range although Soul 7s are pretty popular. Rossi E88s do work very well on everything the mountain has to offer, even when it hasn't snowed for a while.

post #855 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post


Wonder if you were looking in rental shops or demo shops? Retail shops that sell and rent will often have larger fleets of a wide range of skis for demo.. There are however, still many "rental shops" offering the cheapest rental packages but don't sell a lot of equipment other than accessories like hats and gloves. These shops will often mostly have basic beginner gear. If they offer a "performance rental" it might be a fleet of slightly better intermediate skis.

 

I was going around the rental shops in Dillon, Keystone, and Frisco, including the bigger ones like Christy Sports and some others whose names I can't remember. The fact that so many places had so few skis over 75-80 mm, so few people were on skis over 80 mm (conditions didn't warrant anything wider), and I specifically had to get demo skis in order to put some "gunboats" under my feet gave me the impression that the original editorial was a bit of an exaggeration.

 

Maybe things are different at Vail, but at Copper, A-basin, Loveland, and Keystone at spring break, I didn't see many people on unnecessarily wide skis.

post #856 of 901
Most "rental" fleets are generally narrower. Almost all shops that have skis wider than 85 mm will have them in their demo section. And generally do not include the boots.
post #857 of 901

This thread is a perfect place to remind people to employ the phrase 'caveat emptor'.

post #858 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

 

I was going around the rental shops in Dillon, Keystone, and Frisco, including the bigger ones like Christy Sports and some others whose names I can't remember. The fact that so many places had so few skis over 75-80 mm, so few people were on skis over 80 mm (conditions didn't warrant anything wider), and I specifically had to get demo skis in order to put some "gunboats" under my feet gave me the impression that the original editorial was a bit of an exaggeration.

 

Maybe things are different at Vail, but at Copper, A-basin, Loveland, and Keystone at spring break, I didn't see many people on unnecessarily wide skis.

Did you verify what planet you were on?  I was just out at Winter Park skiing a mogul ski at 66 under foot.  I looked at everyone's skis on the lift and on the hill.  There was one guy on Hart mogul skis, but everyone else I saw was on something much much wider than mine.  It feels a little weird to be skiing on something so narrow compared to what everyone else has.  It really stood out to me.  This is supposed to be the mogul capital of the world, but weren't many mogul skiers that trip.  Times past I've seen lots of mogul skis there.  My friend rented from the Winter Park demo fleet with the link shown below.  I think he picked 106 under foot.  Can you get anything less than 80 from their fleet?  Certainly nothing at the resort anywhere close to my Twisters.

 

https://www.winterparkresort.com/plan-your-trip/rentals/ski-and-board/ski-rental/demo-men

post #859 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

Certainly nothing at the resort anywhere close to my Twisters.

 

https://www.winterparkresort.com/plan-your-trip/rentals/ski-and-board/ski-rental/demo-men

 

Hey buddy!  How much do you weigh?  How tall are you?  What length are you on?  And are these the skis?

 

https://www.ski-depot.com/products/2017/dynastar-twister-skis-2017

 

And what/how do they do better than an all mountain carver in the bumps?  Such as my Dynastar Contacts in 172cm.  I am 210lbs, 5'  10 3/4."


Edited by Tim Hodgson - 4/18/17 at 9:39am
post #860 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post

Most "rental" fleets are generally narrower. Almost all shops that have skis wider than 85 mm will have them in their demo section. And generally do not include the boots.

 

I know, but the original premise of the thread was that a lot of unsuspecting people were being pushed on to fat skis from rental shops and retailers. I didn't see much of anything over 80-mm among the regular rentals, which is what most people were on. So that just leaves people asking for demos and buying their own gear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

Did you verify what planet you were on?  I was just out at Winter Park skiing a mogul ski at 66 under foot.  I looked at everyone's skis on the lift and on the hill.  There was one guy on Hart mogul skis, but everyone else I saw was on something much much wider than mine.  It feels a little weird to be skiing on something so narrow compared to what everyone else has.  It really stood out to me.  This is supposed to be the mogul capital of the world, but weren't many mogul skiers that trip.  Times past I've seen lots of mogul skis there.  My friend rented from the Winter Park demo fleet with the link shown below.  I think he picked 106 under foot.  Can you get anything less than 80 from their fleet?  Certainly nothing at the resort anywhere close to my Twisters.

 

https://www.winterparkresort.com/plan-your-trip/rentals/ski-and-board/ski-rental/demo-men

 

Thanks for the link. May I point out that this is a list of demo skis. The original premise of this thread was that wide numbers of people who one would expect to be renting from the regular rental fleet (i.e., not demos) were being pushed into riding around on much wider skis than they should be.

 

I was in Summit Co in a week with high temps and no new snow, so I can only attest to what I saw where I was. But from what I saw, most people were not really going after the mogul runs all that much. Most were doing some moguls here and there but were mostly on the groomers. Also, most weren't on skis over 80 mm. And, most of the shops I visited didn't have much, if anything at all, over 80 mm in their non-demo rental fleet, and that includes just about every shop in Dillon and Frisco, as well as a couple at the base of Keystone.

 

From what I saw, almost none of the tourists were flailing around helplessly on unnecessarily wide, rockered skis as was described in the original editorial. Most of the people I saw were on skis appropriate for the conditions and terrain they were skiing (except the patrollers).

 

If your friend thinks a 106-mm ski is appropriate for mogul skiing in firm conditions, then maybe he shouldn't be paying extra money to be renting from demo fleets.

post #861 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Hodgson View Post
 

 

Hey buddy!  How much do you weigh?  How tall are you?  What length are you on?  And are these the skis?

 

https://www.ski-depot.com/products/2017/dynastar-twister-skis-2017

 

And what/how do they do better than an all mountain carver in the bumps?  Such as my Dynastar Contacts in 172cm.  I am 210lbs, 5'  10 3/4."

170 pounds, 5'11", 182 cm.  They are the 2014 version with different graphics.

 

Allot of my demo carving experience is getting outdated, but one problem I've had with carvers in the bumps is that they get edge locked and it's hard to release the edges and there's lots of energy to be dissipated when releasing the edges.  So, I find them harder to smear when I need to smear.  This demo below shows nicely the difference I've experienced.  Look how much more rebound there is with the carver.  The mogul ski is less lively, but smears around more easily.

 

post #862 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

 

I know, but the original premise of the thread was that a lot of unsuspecting people were being pushed on to fat skis from rental shops and retailers. I didn't see much of anything over 80-mm among the regular rentals, which is what most people were on. So that just leaves people asking for demos and buying their own gear.

 

Thanks for the link. May I point out that this is a list of demo skis. The original premise of this thread was that wide numbers of people who one would expect to be renting from the regular rental fleet (i.e., not demos) were being pushed into riding around on much wider skis than they should be.

 

I was in Summit Co in a week with high temps and no new snow, so I can only attest to what I saw where I was. But from what I saw, most people were not really going after the mogul runs all that much. Most were doing some moguls here and there but were mostly on the groomers. Also, most weren't on skis over 80 mm. And, most of the shops I visited didn't have much, if anything at all, over 80 mm in their non-demo rental fleet, and that includes just about every shop in Dillon and Frisco, as well as a couple at the base of Keystone.

 

From what I saw, almost none of the tourists were flailing around helplessly on unnecessarily wide, rockered skis as was described in the original editorial. Most of the people I saw were on skis appropriate for the conditions and terrain they were skiing (except the patrollers).

 

If your friend thinks a 106-mm ski is appropriate for mogul skiing in firm conditions, then maybe he shouldn't be paying extra money to be renting from demo fleets.

I looked at Winterpark's beginner rental ski and it has a 70-79mm waste.  So, perhaps you've been entirely right about everything you said in this thread, but dude, why are you skiing on entry level rental equipment?  Stop it.  Is it worth being right if you're a gaper?  Demo and try a bunch of different top level skis.  It's not much more money compared to the overall expenses and well worth the experience.

 

My friend just went with what the shop recommended for the conditions.  We had a mix of conditions skiing all over the mountain.  Sometimes his ski was better suited, sometimes mine was.  We'd hit some bumps that I thought were awesome, and he'd say wow those are too icy.  Sometimes I would have trouble getting up out of some heavy wet snow when it was steep where he didn't.  I would have struggled with his ski in the bumps with a narrow stance, but ultimately either ski was fun everywhere that day.

post #863 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

 

I know, but the original premise of the thread was that a lot of unsuspecting people were being pushed on to fat skis from rental shops and retailers. I didn't see much of anything over 80-mm among the regular rentals, which is what most people were on. So that just leaves people asking for demos and buying their own gear.

 

Thanks for the link. May I point out that this is a list of demo skis. The original premise of this thread was that wide numbers of people who one would expect to be renting from the regular rental fleet (i.e., not demos) were being pushed into riding around on much wider skis than they should be.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Masia View Post
 

Someone -- I don't remember who -- asked me to post this. The article arises out of my frustration in teaching people to shape their turns -- especially in bumps -- when they can neither edge through the entire turn nor engage the shovel at the beginning of the turn. 

 

http://skiyoungernow.com/2015/12/03/the-tyranny-of-fat/

 

No. The original premise of the thread had to do with the frustration of teaching people how to use a ski shape/design (ie engage an edge, and shovel of the ski) to shape a turn, when they come to lessons on a wide rockered ski and how the wide rockered ski ("FAT") has been getting pushed by the marketing machine. There was nothing about rental fleets.

 

My revisit of the thread had to do with the fact that the MFG's are now putting out more good quality skis back in the narrower widths (not skinny, just narrower) and the ski reviewers are taking note of this and some are praising it.

post #864 of 901

Meh. It is ski magazine.They have historically played to that side of the equation. And look how well they are doing! There are other review sites/crews that have never come to grips with modern skis. 

 

But as long as we are revisiting this....

 

Most skiers most places should be on 90-110 skis most days. Kind of "foot wide". ish. Obviously some places might bias narrower and some wider. But the bottom line is that time and again it strikes me that the narrow ski contingent (especially in western mountains) is more about ego and less about people having fun *and* improving their skiing.

 

Ask yourself about attrition rates. Why don't people come back more? If the narrow mindset was not so prevalent in the teaching world, maybe attrition would be lower. And I'd likely take a fistful of privates a year. Instead, I average....zero. I suspect others get clued into that gulf when they compare what they are being pushed onto vs what is on the feet of the best and happiest skiers at most hills. And for total newbs - narrow fully cambered skis just cause pain and falling for no benefit. I'm not suggesting everyone go as wide as I prefer - but most places putting a beginner on a sub-90 ski is just abuse.  And intermediates are limited by such skis.

 

The real question is why does so much of the teaching community insist on living in the past and dragging students back with them? (note: again, discount this observation for appropriate corner cases)

 

There is a very good reason that the trend in recreational skis has been toward medium wide (aka 90-110 or maybe even 115), rockered, and early-ish taper taper skis. 

post #865 of 901

If I were on a ski "foot wideish" all day on firm packed snow, my knees would not be happy. Just sayin.

 

We are not "living in the past" the physics and biomechanics involved with skiing support NOT being on a wider ski to learn how to find an edge, and the feel of a shovel pulling you into a turn without putting undue stress on the knees.

 

Would I be able to ski them? No problem. Would they be the best tool for the job? No. My ortho and knees will thank me for not being on something that wide for my daily driver.

 

I'd be fine with rental fleets being 75-80 under foot for beginner-intermediate skis presuming they have some shape and some camber (to get the tips to engage more easily). I have no problem with some rocker (help draw the ski into the turn) but to expect a beginner/intermediate to tip a ski far enough to engage a full rocker when the ski is fighting them to go up on edge. Sorry that does not make for better teaching on groomed medium firm snow.

post #866 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 

Meh. It is ski magazine.They have historically played to that side of the equation. And look how well they are doing! There are other review sites/crews that have never come to grips with modern skis. 

 

But as long as we are revisiting this....

 

Most skiers most places should be on 90-110 skis most days. Kind of "foot wide". ish. Obviously some places might bias narrower and some wider. But the bottom line is that time and again it strikes me that the narrow ski contingent (especially in western mountains) is more about ego and less about people having fun *and* improving their skiing.

 

Ask yourself about attrition rates. Why don't people come back more? If the narrow mindset was not so prevalent in the teaching world, maybe attrition would be lower. And I'd likely take a fistful of privates a year. Instead, I average....zero. I suspect others get clued into that gulf when they compare what they are being pushed onto vs what is on the feet of the best and happiest skiers at most hills. And for total newbs - narrow fully cambered skis just cause pain and falling for no benefit. I'm not suggesting everyone go as wide as I prefer - but most places putting a beginner on a sub-90 ski is just abuse.  And intermediates are limited by such skis.

 

The real question is why does so much of the teaching community insist on living in the past and dragging students back with them? (note: again, discount this observation for appropriate corner cases)

 

There is a very good reason that the trend in recreational skis has been toward medium wide (aka 90-110 or maybe even 115), rockered, and early-ish taper taper skis. 

 

How is putting a beginner on sub-90 ski abuse?  Serious question.  I have some beginner skiers in my family and would like to know what to recommend for rentals.  How is sub-90 a bad idea for someone skiing primarily gentle slope, groomed, green runs?

 

When is the last time you tried a sub-90 ski?  What didn't you like about it?

post #867 of 901

This is where I usually rent at Vail. 

 

Beginner/cheapest rental package

 

Beginner/intermediate package

 

Demos

 

They recommend narrowest skis for beginner (74mm) and a bit wider underfoot for beginner/intermediate (75 or 77mm).  Narrow to wide available for demos (75-106).  Some of their demos are not advertised on the website.  They have a few other things like SL or really wide powder skis also.

 

Generally I find that shop personnel will recommend something wider than I would like when I ask the question: "What ski would you use tomorrow?"  I guess I spend more time on piste than the shop guys do.

post #868 of 901

TexSkier:  Let me as one of the peanuts in the gallery chip in.  In his Global Skiing Podcast interview (Podcast Garden) Jonathan Ballou says that most skiers are currently on too wide of a ski for their conditions.  True for us in the West, soft snow will justify a somewhat wider ski for beginners (and certainly for off-piste trees and powder for advanced skiers).  But where beginners and intermediates learn to ski (as opposed to merely surviving while skiing), is on groomed runs where, I believe, you want a ski which they can learn the three skills of Edging, Pressure and Rotation. 

 

A narrower ski favors the Edging skill.  A wider ski favors the Rotation skill (pivot or steered turns).  You want an all round beginner/intermediate ski for your beginners which permits the instructor to show them how to employ each of those skills and, thus, to feel each of those skills engaging and to experience what that skill engagement does for their skiing. 

 

When I teach on my wide 195cm Rossi Super7's (because I have taken advantage of early morning powder and roll in "just-in-time" for lineup but without time to go to the locker room to change skis) it is harder for me to demo the Edging skill than if I was on my narrower Dynastar Contact's which are similar to the rental skis which my students are on. Both extremes can be pivoted steered and carved.  But in my experience, it simply easier for a beginner/intermediate to learn on a general purpose groomer-biased ski than on a wider more off-piste oriented ski.

 

Edit:  And what dchan said both for my students and for my inside ankle bone which screams in pain skiing a wide ski on firm snow very long.


Edited by Tim Hodgson - 4/18/17 at 12:12pm
post #869 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexSkier View Post


Generally I find that shop personnel will recommend something wider than I would like when I ask the question: "What ski would you use tomorrow?"  I guess I spend more time on piste than the shop guys do.

Perhaps you should ask "What skis would you recommend for ME?" I get this all the time, and always want to respond with "you ain't me, sweetheart".
post #870 of 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexSkier View Post


Generally I find that shop personnel will recommend something wider than I would like when I ask the question: "What ski would you use tomorrow?"  I guess I spend more time on piste than the shop guys do.

Perhaps you should ask "What skis would you recommend for ME?" I get this all the time, and always want to respond with "you ain't me, sweetheart".


I've tried both and generally get the same answer.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching